#4 more accurate description

[ghost]

I think that the wording of #4 could maybe better reflect the intended description of the issue.

flex shorthand declarations with unitless flex-basis values are ignored

Can also be taken as " If you write out ( flex: 1 ) you must declare the full line with ( flex: 1 1 auto ) to achieve default for the remaining flex parameters. "

Or that is how I took it at first haha.

So Initially I thought that the descriptions of #4 and #6 where conflicting with one another.

But this is probably due to me not being super savy on the terms, being that you said "Unitless" I should have known that referred specifically to the unit type needing to be set if you wanted to set it to 0.

Although, it could be slightly more clear with:

"flex shorthand declarations with a flex-basis value that does not have a unit declared are ignored."

Probably not necessary for most, but it made me stumble for a second.

[garrettw]

"flex-basis value that does not have a unit declared" --vs-- "unitless flex-basis values"

Means the exact same thing to me, in fewer words. Being concise is a good thing.